Supreme Court holds valid District Survey Report mandatory before sand-mining auctions; quashes e-auction and LOIs

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra heard appeals by the State of Uttar Pradesh and successful bidders challenging a National Green Tribunal order that quashed an e-auction notice dated 13.02.2023 and consequent Letters of Interest (LOIs) for sand mining in Saharanpur district. The appeals raised the question whether the auction and grant of LOIs were permissible in the absence of a valid, final and subsisting District Survey Report (DSR) as required under the EIA regime and related guidelines.

The Court affirmed the NGT and dismissed the civil appeals, holding that preparation of a DSR in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Appendix X read with para 7(iii)(a) of the EIA Notification was mandatory and that a draft DSR could not form the basis for grant of environmental clearance or authorisation to mine. The Court reiterated that regulatory controls must be strict: "We unequivocally uphold the law and the regulations governing sand mining, demanding zero tolerance for unauthorised activities, strict adherence to these regulations is non-negotiable." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “A District Survey Report is a document of seminal importance as it enables informed decision making. … A valid and a subsisting DSR alone can be the basis for an application for grant of EC. A draft DSR is untenable for grant of an EC.” The appeals were accordingly dismissed and the impugned auction and LOIs were held illegal.

Background The dispute arose when the District Magistrate, Saharanpur issued an e-tender/e-auction notice on 13.02.2023 for sand, gravel and related minor minerals under U.P. rules. Respondent No.1 challenged the auction before the NGT under Sections 14 and 18 of the National Green Tribunal Act, contending that the last subsisting DSR dated 2017 had expired in 2022 and only a draft DSR dated 13.01.2023 was available when the auction was launched. The NGT constituted a joint committee (CPCB, UPPCB and the District Magistrate) which reported that LOIs had been issued in respect of 14 sites. The NGT quashed the auction and LOIs on the ground that the auction proceeded without a valid and subsisting DSR, contrary to the EIA Notification (as amended), the Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 and this Court’s precedents.

The State and LOI-holders appealed. While SEAC later considered the draft DSR (03.05.2024) and SEIAA approved the fresh DSR in its meeting on 24.05.2024, the Supreme Court found that those actions post-dated the auction and could not validate the earlier illegal exercise. The Court reviewed the evolution of the legal framework: the EIA Notification, 2006 and its amendments in 2016 which introduced District Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA), District Expert Appraisal Committee (DEAC) and a new Category B2 for minor mineral leases up to five hectares; Appendix X prescribing detailed procedure for preparation of DSRs; and the 2020 Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines emphasising that DSRs be prepared before auction and be placed in the public domain. The judgment relied on this Court’s earlier pronouncements in Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana and State of Bihar v. Pawan Kumar, observing that prior environmental assessment at district level and adherence to prescribed procedures are essential to avoid irreversible ecological harm from unregulated sand mining.

The Court emphasised procedural requirements under Appendix X: DSRs must be prepared district-wise for each minor mineral, be placed in the public domain (Collectorate and district website) for at least 21 days, consider public comments, be finalised by DEIAA within six months, and be updated every five years. The Court held that a draft DSR is not tenable as the basis for DEAC/DEIAA appraisal or for granting environmental clearance, and affirmed the NGT’s order quashing the auction dated 13.02.2023. The judgment supplied detailed reasons and rejected the appeals.

Case Details: Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 14170 of 2024; Civil Appeal No. 14933 of 2024; Civil Appeal No. 14000 of 2024 Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Gaurav Kumar & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Aishwarya Bhati, Learned Additional Solicitor General; Vishnu Shankar Jain, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Ranjit Kumar, Senior Advocate (assisted by Vanshdeep Dalmia, Advocate); S.P. Singh, Senior Advocate

Judgment delivered by: Hon'ble Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra on May 8, 2025.